Chester Upland S.D. v. M. Rossi

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Chester Upland School District and
Chichester School District, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Petitioners
v.
Michael Rossi, in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Beaver County, Pennsylvania, and Cathy
J. Fetter, in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Bedford County, Pennsylvania, and
Jonathan K. DelCollo in the official
capacity as the Prothonotary of the Court of
Common Pleas of Berks County,
Pennsylvania, and Robin G. Patton in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Blair County,
Pennsylvania, and Dawn Close in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Bradford
County, Pennsylvania and Judith Reiss in
the official capacity as the Prothonotary of
the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks
County, Pennsylvania, and Kelly Ferrari in
the official capacity as the Prothonotary of
the Court of Common Pleas of Butler
County, Pennsylvania, and Lisa Crynock in
the official capacity as the Prothonotary of
the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria
County, Pennsylvania, and Mary Grace
Olay in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Cameron County, Pennsylvania, and
Kayla M. Semmel in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Carbon County, Pennsylvania, and
Jeremy S. Breon in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Centre County, Pennsylvania, and
Debbie Bookman in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania, and
Jeffrey Hines in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Clarion County, Pennsylvania, and Brian
K. Spencer in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, and
Cynthia A. Love in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Clinton County, Pennsylvania, and
Barbara N. Silvetti in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Columbia County, Pennsylvania,
and Emmy Arnett in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Crawford County, Pennsylvania,
and Dale E. Sabadish in the official capacity
as the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas, of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, and Mary J. Walk in the
official capacity as the Director of Office of
Judicial Support of the Court of Common
Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania,
and Nina Capuzzi Frankhouser in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County,
Pennsylvania, and Dawn M. Millin in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Forest County,
Pennsylvania, and Timothy Sponseller in
the official capacity as the Prothonotary of
the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin
County, Pennsylvania, and Patty Fix in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Fulton County,
Pennsylvania, and Susan K. White in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Greene County,
Pennsylvania, and Kay Coons in the official
capacity as the Prothonotary of the Court of
Common Pleas of Huntingdon County,
Pennsylvania, and Randy Degenkolb in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County,
Pennsylvania, and Tonya S. Geist in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson
County, Pennsylvania, and Lori A. Ferry in
the official capacity as the Prothonotary of
the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata
County, Pennsylvania, and Mauri B. Kelly
in the official capacity as the Prothonotary
of the Court of Common Pleas of
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, and Jim
Haddock in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, and
Thomas D. Heap in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania,
and Laura Isadore in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of McKean County, Pennsylvania,
and Tammy Stuck in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Mifflin County, Pennsylvania, and
George Warden in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Monroe County, Pennsylvania, and
Susan N. Kauwell in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Montour County, Pennsylvania,
and Holly Ruggiero in the official capacity
as the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Northampton County,
Pennsylvania, and Jamie Saleski in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland
County, Pennsylvania, and Zoe Burd in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Perry County,
Pennsylvania, and Denise Fitzpatrick in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Pike County,
Pennsylvania, and Bridget Miller in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill
County, Pennsylvania, and Stephanie Wolf
in the official capacity as the Prothonotary
of the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder
County, Pennsylvania, and Angie G.
Svonavec in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and
Kellie Carpenter in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Sullivan County, Pennsylvania, and
Marie Seymour in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Tioga County, Pennsylvania, and
Diane Miller in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Union County, Pennsylvania, and Paula
M. Palmer in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Venango County, Pennsylvania, and Jen
Phillips in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Warren County, Pennsylvania, and Laura
Hough in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Washington County, Pennsylvania, and
Edward Sandercock in the official capacity
as the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Wayne County, Pennsylvania, and
Christina O’Brien in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania, and Cindy Adams in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming
County, Pennsylvania, and Allison Blew in
the official capacity as the Prothonotary of
the Court of Common Pleas of York
County, Pennsylvania,
Respondents No. 133 M.D. 2021
Submitted: November 15, 2022
BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: January 24, 2023
This is a putative class action filed by Petitioners Chester Upland
School District and Chichester School District (Petitioners) on behalf of themselves
and all similarly-situated political subdivisions against the Director of the Office of
Judicial Support of the County of Delaware (Delaware OJS) and 52 prothonotaries
of courts of common pleas in second class A, third through eighth class, and home
rule counties. Petitioners seek declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief, as well
as damages, due to Respondents’ alleged overcharging of court fees under the
applicable sections of what commonly is known as the Prothonotary Fee Act. See
42 P.S. §§ 21071 and 21075 (third through eighth class counties),1 21161 and 21165
(second class A counties).2
Before the Court are the preliminary objections (POs) to Petitioners’
Second Amended Petition for Review (Second Amended Petition) filed by Delaware
OJS and the Prothonotaries of Beaver, Bedford, Berks, Blair, Bradford, Bucks,
Butler, Cambria, Carbon, Centre, Chester, Clarion, Clearfield, Clinton, Columbia,
Crawford, Cumberland, Fayette, Forest, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon,
Indiana, Jefferson, Juniata, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Lycoming, McKean, Mifflin,
Monroe, Montour, Northampton, Northumberland, Perry, Pike, Schuylkill, Snyder,
Sullivan, Tioga, Union, Venango, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Westmoreland,
Wyoming, and York Counties (Respondents).3
Upon review, we conclude that the Second Amended Petition does not
remedy the deficiencies we previously identified in the First Amended Petition. We
accordingly sustain Respondents’ POs, in part, and dismiss the Second Amended
Petition. Further, because Petitioners have had ample opportunity to amend their
pleading to state cognizable claims against Respondents and have failed to do so, we
dismiss with prejudice.
I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Chester Upland I
Petitioners filed an original petition for review on April 26, 2021. After
Respondents filed POs, Petitioners filed an amended petition for review on July 12,
1
Act of November 26, 1982, P.L. 744, as amended. Sections 1 and 5 of the Prothonotary
Fee Act, 42 P.S. §§ 21071, 21075, apply to third through eighth class and home rule counties.
2
Act of February 14, 1986 (1986 Act), P.L. 7, as amended. Sections 1 and 5 of the 1986
Act, 42 P.S. §§ 21161, 21165, apply to second class A counties only.
3
We note that Cameron and Somerset Counties are not included in Respondents’ POs or
brief.
2
2021 (First Amended Petition). In the First Amended Petition, Petitioners asserted
claims for declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment and sought injunctive relief
and damages. Respondents again filed POs. In an opinion and order filed April 29,
2022, we sustained the POs, in part, and dismissed the First Amended Petition
without prejudice. See Chester Upland School District v. Rossi, 275 A.3d 1117 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2021) (Chester Upland I). We summarized in Chester Upland I the
material allegations of Petitioners’ claims:
Petitioners are two political subdivisions located in
Delaware County. Petitioners seek to represent a proposed
class of all political subdivisions, as defined by 101 Pa.
Code § 23.226 (“school districts, municipalities, and
counties, as applicable”), throughout the entire
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which have in the
preceding four years filed a document in any of the
Respondents’ Courts of Common Pleas and which were
charged fees in excess of the statutorily set fees. There are
in excess of 3,000 members in the proposed class
definition.
Each of the parties constituting a Respondent is a
Prothonotary, or counterpart, of a home rule county or
county of the second class A or of the third to eighth class.
Petitioners assert[:]
66. Pursuant to Pennsylvania law relating to a county
of Class 2 A through Class 8, the maximum fee to be
charged to the Commonwealth or a political
subdivision for any one of the services provided herein
shall be $10. 42 P.S. § 21075; 42 P.S. § 21165.
67. Upon information and belief, during the period of
time from the respective effective dates of 42 P.S. §
21075 (during 1982) and 42 P.S. § 21165 (during
1986), as applicable, up to the date of the filing of this
[Second Amended] Petition, each of the Respondents
has overcharged one or more of the Petitioners, in
violation of the foregoing statutory limitation.
3
68. Petitioners allege that each Respondent has
overcharged a Petitioner and/or Petitioners for court
services in excess of the statutory limitation and instead
charged Petitioner(s) the same amount it charged to a
party which is not a political subdivision.
[Second Amended Petition] ¶¶ 66-68 (footnote[s]
omitted).
Petitioners allege that they personally were charged
unauthorized and excessive court fees by [Delaware OJS]
in violation of the $10 maximums set forth in section 5 of
the Prothonotary Fee Act and section 5 of the 1986 Act.
Petitioners do not allege specifically that either of them
has paid a court fee to any County’s prothonotary other
than to [Delaware OJS]. They aver that they require
discovery in order to ascertain the factual details about
which of the Respondents overcharged which of the
Petitioners, and the factual details of the parties, dates, and
amounts of all instances of an overcharge.
In Count I, Petitioners request the entry of a declaratory
judgment that Respondents have violated the Prothonotary
Fee Act and the 1986 Act by overcharging the putative
class members for court fees and should be compelled to
issue refunds.
In Count II, Petitioners allege that, during the four-year
period prior to the date of filing of their [Second]
Amended Petition, all Respondents have been unjustly
enriched by receiving fees that are more than the
statutorily limited court fees.
Petitioners further request class certification, issuance of
an injunction limiting all Respondents from collecting
fees, an award of counsel fees and costs, and an award of
money damages as reimbursement for excessive fees.
4
Chester Upland I, 275 A.3d at 1123-24 (quotations, footnotes, and most citations
omitted).
B. Second Amended Petition for Review
After we dismissed the First Amended Petition without prejudice,
Petitioners filed the Second Amended Petition on May 31, 2021. In addition to
reasserting declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims, Petitioners added a
claim for mandamus relief (Count III), in which they seek to compel Respondents to
revise their fee schedules to eliminate the overcharging of political subdivisions.
They also seek mandamus-related damages pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 8303.4
Petitioners have added several new allegations and exhibits to the
Second Amended Petition detailing the filing fees charged by prothonotaries
throughout the Commonwealth. They first identify 12 prothonotaries5 that have not
been named as parties to this action because their filing fees for political subdivisions
are “significantly lower” than comparable fees charged by Respondents. (Second
Am. Pet. ¶¶ 69-71; Ex. P-1.) Petitioners also attach a demonstrative exhibit showing
the differences between the filing fees charged to political subdivisions and other
litigants by these non-party prothonotaries. The exhibit also identifies the “range of
variance” among those differences. (Id. ¶¶ 73-77; Ex. P-2.)
Petitioners further attach a spreadsheet showing the filing fees charged
to several school districts by 12 Respondent prothonotaries,6 which fees allegedly
4
Section 8303 of the Judicial Code provides that “[a] person who is adjudged in an action
in the nature of mandamus to have failed or refused without lawful justification to perform a duty
required by law shall be liable in damages to the person aggrieved by such failure or refusal.” 42
Pa. C.S. § 8303.
5
Adams, Armstrong, Dauphin, Elk, Erie, Lancaster, Lawrence, Lebanon, Mercer, Lehigh,
Montgomery, and Susquehanna Counties. (Second Am. Pet. ¶ 71.)
6
Berks, Bradford, Butler, Cambria, Cumberland, Delaware, Greene, Luzerne, Monroe,
Northampton, Westmoreland, and York Counties. (Second Am. Pet. ¶ 79.)
5
indicate overcharging. (Second Am. Pet. ¶ 81; Ex. P-3.) Also attached are the fee
schedules of these 12 Respondent prothonotaries and those of 37 other Respondents.
(Id. ¶¶ 82-85; Exs. P-4, P-5.)7 Petitioners allege “the fact that each of the counties
searched showed evidence of overcharging, coupled with the fact that the current
versions of publicly-available fee schedules for the other remaining Respondents do
not reflect[ ] reduced filing fees for political subdivisions . . . raises the inference
that the other remaining Respondents in this case also likely engaged in historical
overcharging.” (Id. ¶ 80.) Petitioners continue to acknowledge, however, that they
do not know the “details of the historical overcharging” of political subdivisions by
Respondents. (Id. ¶ 78.)
II. DISCUSSION
A. Respondents’ POs
In their POs to the Second Amended Petition, Respondents lodge
several objections, which we paraphrase as follows:
(1) The Second Amended Petition was untimely filed
more than 20 days after service of this Court’s April 29,
2022 order dismissing the First Amended Petition without
prejudice (First PO).
(2) Petitioners still lack standing to assert any of their
claims against any Respondents except Delaware OJS.
The Second Amended Petition directly contradicts our
holding in Chester Upland I (Second PO).
7
Paragraph 84 of the Second Amended Petition includes in this list the Counties of Beaver,
Bedford, Blair, Bucks, Cameron, Carbon, Centre, Chester, Clarion, Clinton, Columbia, Crawford,
Fayette, Forest, Franklin, Fulton, Huntingdon, Indiana, Jefferson, Juniata, Lackawanna,
Lycoming, McKean, Mifflin, Montour, Northumberland, Perry, Pike, Schuylkill, Snyder,
Somerset, Sullivan, Tioga, Union, Venango, Warren, Washington, Wayne, and Wyoming. We
note that Clearfield County is not included in this list, and its fee schedule is omitted from Exhibit
P-5. We further note that the fee schedules of both Perry and Somerset Counties appear to be
missing from Exhibit P-5.
6
(3) Counts I (declaratory judgment) and II (unjust
enrichment) of the Second Amended Petition are legally
insufficient because increases in filing fees are permitted
by the Prothonotary Fee Act, and Petitioners have failed to
allege sufficient facts showing they have been charged
court fees in excess of statutory limitations (Third and
Fourth POs).
(4) Counts I (declaratory judgment) and II (unjust
enrichment) of the Second Amended Petition are barred
by sovereign, governmental, and quasi-judicial immunity
(Fifth PO).
(5) Count I (mandamus) fails as a matter of law because
Petitioners cannot show any clear right to mandamus relief
(Sixth PO).
(6) Petitioners’ request for attorneys’ fees fails as a
matter of law (Seventh PO).
B. Analysis
1. Timeliness
In their First PO, Respondents argue that the Second Amended Petition
should be dismissed because it was untimely filed under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil
Procedure (Pa.R.Civ.P.) 1028(e), Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028(e). Respondents argue that
because the Court’s order in Chester Upland I was entered on April 29, 2021, any
amended pleading had to be filed within 20 days of notice of that order. Because
the Second Amended Petition was filed outside that window, Respondents contend
that it must be dismissed.
Although we acknowledge Respondents’ challenge to the timeliness of
the Second Amended Petition, because we dismiss it on the merits as set forth infra,
we need not address the timeliness issue here. Moreover, to the extent that the
Second Amended Petition might be untimely, which we do not herein hold, we note
7
that Rule 126 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Pa.R.Civ.P. 126, would
permit us in this instance to disregard any procedural irregularity.
Accordingly, we dismiss as moot Respondents’ First PO.
2. Legal Sufficiency8
a. Standing
In their Second PO, Respondents argue that Petitioners still do not have
standing to bring claims against any prothonotary except Delaware OJS and that the
Second Amended Petition directly contradicts Chester Upland I. We agree.
Petitioners’ Second Amended Petition altogether fails to address this Court’s holding
in Chester Upland I that Petitioners lack standing to bring this action against any
Respondents except Delaware OJS. In the First Amended Petition, Petitioners
included no allegations that they were charged excessive fees by any Respondent
other than Delaware OJS. Relying principally on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s
decision in Nye v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 470 A.2d 98 (Pa. 1983), we stated:
The same standing rules apply for a class[ ]action
petitioner and require a causal connection between the
named petitioner and all named respondents, even where
different respondents are alleged to engage in the same
behavior complained of in the action. For a petitioner in a
class action to maintain an action against multiple
respondents, the petitioner must allege that he has been
aggrieved by each respondent; and where the petitioner
alleges that he has been aggrieved by only one
respondent—and not by any of the others—he fails to
8
In ruling on POs, we accept as true all well-pleaded material allegations in the petition
for review and any reasonable inferences that we may draw from the averments. Meier v. Maleski,
648 A.2d 595, 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). We are not, however, bound by legal conclusions,
unwarranted inferences from facts, argumentative allegations, or expressions of opinion
encompassed in the petition for review. Id. We may sustain POs where the law makes clear that
the petitioner cannot succeed on the claim, but we must resolve any doubt in favor of the petitioner.
Id. We “may sustain a demurrer only when a petitioner has failed to state a claim for which relief
may be granted.” Armstrong County Memorial Hospital v. Department of Public Welfare, 67 A.3d
160, 170 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (citation omitted).
8
establish the standing necessary to maintain the action
against those other respondents.
....
Here, . . . Petitioners purport to bring a class action on
behalf of themselves and as representatives of 3,000 other
political subdivisions which may have paid unauthorized
and excessive court fees to 52 prothonotaries. Under Nye,
Petitioners lack standing to maintain an action against any
Respondents other than [Delaware OJS] because
Petitioners fail to allege that they have been aggrieved by
the conduct of those other Respondents. Petitioners do not
allege any facts or evidence to suggest that either of them
ever has been charged any court fees—whether
“unauthorized and excessive” or otherwise—by any
Respondent other than the Respondent from Delaware
County. Petitioners only aver that, as political
subdivisions located in Delaware County, they were
charged unauthorized and excessive court fees by
[Delaware OJS]. For Petitioners to maintain their action
against all Respondents, they must allege that they have
been aggrieved by each Respondent, which they fail to do.
Accordingly, . . . Petitioners lack standing to maintain this
action against any Respondent other than [Delaware OJS].
Chester Upland I, 275 A.3d at 1126 (citations omitted). Petitioners still have not
added any factual allegations suggesting that they have been charged excessive (or
any) court fees by any prothonotary in Pennsylvania other than Delaware OJS. They
instead “acknowledge that [this] Court has questioned whether all Petitioners in this
case have standing as to all Respondents regarding historical overcharging” and
claim that they require discovery to address the standing problem. In their brief,
Petitioners go further and dismiss out of hand our holding in Chester Upland I as a
premature “class certification determination.” (Petitioners’ Brief at 22.)
First, this Court made no class certification determination because no
petition for class certification was before us. Second, and more importantly, the
9
reported, precedential opinions of this Court may not be treated as mere suggestions
to litigants. The holding in Chester Upland I was clear. No additional political
subdivisions have been added to this lawsuit that allegedly have been charged
excessive fees by any prothonotary in the Commonwealth. Petitioners also have not
established that they have been charged any court fees anywhere in the
Commonwealth other than in Delaware County. Petitioners therefore have done
nothing to supply any additional allegations establishing that they have standing to
bring this action against all named Respondents. The Second Amended Petition
therefore fails as a matter of law to the extent that it seeks relief against any
Respondent other than Delaware OJS. Respondents’ Second PO is sustained.
b. Declaratory Judgment and Unjust Enrichment
In their Third and Fourth POs, Respondents again challenge
Petitioners’ claims for declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment, arguing that the
Second Amended Petition still does not allege sufficient facts showing that the
challenged filing fees were not properly increased and assessed. Again, we agree.
In Chester Upland I, Respondents challenged Petitioners’ declaratory judgment and
unjust enrichment claims, arguing that Petitioners had not pled any facts establishing
that the allegedly excessive fees were not validly increased under section 1.19 of the
9
Section 1.1, added by the Act of December 21, 1998, P.L. 1271, provides, in pertinent
part:
(a) General rule.--In counties of the second class A and the third through eighth
class, including home rule counties of the same class, the prothonotary may
increase any fee or charge that exists as of the effective date of this section with
the approval of the president judge. The amount of any increase may not be
greater than the aggregate of the consumer price index from the month in which
the fee was last established through June 1998.
42 P.S. § 21071.1(a).
10
Prothonotary Fee Act and did not include other fees imposed by other statutes. We
agreed, concluding as follows regarding Petitioners’ claim for declaratory relief:
[W]e find the [First] Amended Petition is too uncertain
and contingent to entitle Petitioners to the requested
declaratory relief. Even if we assume, as alleged, that
[Delaware OJS] charged Petitioners court fees in excess of
$10, we could not, based on that lone allegation, declare
that this conduct violated the Prothonotary Fee Act.
Petitioners do not dispute that the Prothonotary Fee Act
was amended to allow prothonotaries to increase any fee
or charge, and they do not appear to dispute that this
includes the prior $10 maximums applicable to political
subdivisions. . . . They also do not ask us to declare their
rights under the amended fee increase provisions. Rather,
it is clear from the [First] Amended Petition that
Petitioners are only challenging court fees to the extent
that they were in excess of the $10 cap in 42 P.S. §
21075—without regard to the fee increase amendment.
See [First] Amended Petition, [note] 2 (“This fee is
exclusive of other fees and/or surcharges which may be
permitted by other authorities, which may include, if and
to the extent applicable, 42 P.S. § 21071.1, 42 [Pa. C.S.] §
3733, 42 [Pa. C.S.] § 3733.1, and/or 72 P.S. § 1795.1-
E.[10]”). At most, Petitioners have alleged that [Delaware
OJS] may have (they are not entirely certain and need
discovery to confirm) charged them court fees that were
more than $10 and concede that the fee increase provisions
allow prothonotaries to charge more than $10. The
overriding speculative nature of the allegations in the
[First] Amended Petition renders the requested
declarations inappropriate as it is far from clear that grant
of the requested declaratory relief would be of practical
help in ending the controversy. For these reasons,
Petitioners’ factual allegations are legally insufficient to
support this claim for declaratory relief.
10
Section 1795.1-E of the Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 343, as amended, added by the Act
of July 10, 2014, P.L. 1053.
11
Chester Upland I, 275 A.3d at 1127-28 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
We concluded similarly regarding Petitioners’ unjust enrichment claim:
[T]he [First] Amended Petition falls short of pleading the
necessary facts to sustain a cause of action for unjust
enrichment. First, Petitioners do not describe any
instances where [Delaware OJS] overcharged any
Petitioner for a court fee. There are no allegations
describing amounts that were charged or amounts that
were paid, when or by whom. . . . Petitioners further fail
to allege any plausible benefit that [Delaware OJS]
“unjustly” received as a result of charging Petitioners a
court fee in excess of $10. Moreover, based on the
allegations, it is apparent that Petitioners themselves do
not even know for certain that violations have actually
occurred and are using the lawsuit as the means to discover
if and when the overcharges actually occurred. However,
a general statement that discovery is required to ascertain
the necessary facts is not a proper substitute for pleading.
....
Because Petitioners have not alleged facts suggesting that
Respondents received a benefit from Petitioners and that
it would be inequitable for Respondents to retain such
benefit, the Court must sustain this PO and dismiss Count
II.
Id. at 1129.
In the Second Amended Petition, Petitioners add multiple new
allegations and attach exhibits that, in one form or another, contain or summarize
the fee schedules of Respondents and other prothonotaries that have not been sued
in this case. These allegations and related exhibits do not rehabilitate Petitioners’
declaratory judgment or unjust enrichment claims for several reasons. First,
although the exhibits demonstrate that the filing fees across the Commonwealth vary
significantly and that certain counties charge political subdivisions less than other
litigants, none of the exhibits identifies any actual overcharging by Respondents or
12
any other prothonotary. Petitioners continue to acknowledge, but fail to account for,
the fact that prothonotaries can increase their filing fees as approved by the president
judge of each county and, further, may or must charge other statutorily imposed fees
for the benefit of the Commonwealth. There is no breakdown of any fee charged by
any Respondent to show that any portion of the fee is invalid. In short, Petitioners
again have failed to allege facts, if assumed to be true, that establish overcharging.
The allegations remain vague, incomplete, and do not warrant an “inference” of
overcharging by any single Respondent.
Second, the spreadsheets included in Exhibit P-3 do not evidence
overcharging of Petitioners by any county prothonotary, including the Delaware
OJS. Although certain filing fees charged to Petitioners by Delaware OJS are
included, the exhibit does not indicate whether and to what extent each fee properly
has been increased over the years or whether and to what extent it includes other
validly assessed fees. All that is included is the amount charged, which, as we
indicated in Chester Upland I, is insufficient in itself to support a claim for
declaratory relief or unjust enrichment. Accordingly, we conclude that both Counts
I and II fail as a matter of law and must be dismissed. Respondents’ Third and Fourth
POs are sustained.
c. Mandamus
In their Sixth PO, Respondents challenge the legal sufficiency of Count
III of the Second Amended Petition, which seeks mandamus relief. Petitioners
contend that “Respondents have had a clear duty (to comply with the applicable
statutes) to perform the ministerial acts to revise their fee schedules and practices to
reduce the filing[ ] fees being charged to political subdivisions.” (Second Am. Pet.
¶ 124.) They further request the entry of peremptory judgment compelling
Respondents to adjust their filing fees to within applicable statutory limits and an
award of money damages pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. § 8303. (Id. at 31, ¶ 5.)
13
To prevail in mandamus, a petitioner must demonstrate (1) a clear legal
right to relief, (2) a corresponding duty in the respondent, and (3) there are no other
adequate and appropriate remedies at law. Tindell v. Department of Corrections, 87
A.3d 1029, 1034 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). “A mandatory duty is ‘one which a public
officer is required to perform upon a given state of facts and in a prescribed manner
in obedience to the mandate of legal authority.’” Sanders v. Wetzel, 223 A.3d 735,
739 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (quoting Filippi v. Kwitowski, 880 A.2d 711, 713 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2005)). Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and may not be used to
establish legal rights. Tindell, 87 A.3d at 1034.
As we already have discussed, Petitioners have not set forth any
allegations that, if accepted as true, would establish that they or any other political
subdivisions in Pennsylvania have been charged excessive court fees by Delaware
OJS or any other prothonotary’s office. They therefore have not established a clear
legal right to relief or a corresponding duty of Respondents to modify their fee
schedules or pay any damages. Accordingly, we conclude that the mandamus claim
also fails as a matter of law. Respondents’ Sixth PO is sustained.
III. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, we conclude that Petitioners’ claims suffer from
the same deficiencies we identified in Chester Upland I. We accordingly sustain
Respondents POs as set forth above.11 Because Petitioners have had multiple
opportunities to amend their pleading, we will dismiss the Second Amended Petition
with prejudice.
_______________________________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
Judges Fizzano Cannon and Wallace did not participate in the decision of this case.
11
We need not address Respondents’ Fifth and Seventh POs, which raise issues of
immunity and the propriety of attorneys’ fees.
14
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Chester Upland School District and
Chichester School District, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Petitioners
v.
Michael Rossi, in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Beaver County, Pennsylvania, and Cathy
J. Fetter, in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Bedford County, Pennsylvania, and
Jonathan K. DelCollo in the official
capacity as the Prothonotary of the Court of
Common Pleas of Berks County,
Pennsylvania, and Robin G. Patton in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Blair County,
Pennsylvania, and Dawn Close in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Bradford
County, Pennsylvania and Judith Reiss in
the official capacity as the Prothonotary of
the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks
County, Pennsylvania, and Kelly Ferrari in
the official capacity as the Prothonotary of
the Court of Common Pleas of Butler
County, Pennsylvania, and Lisa Crynock in
the official capacity as the Prothonotary of
the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria
County, Pennsylvania, and Mary Grace
Olay in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Cameron County, Pennsylvania, and
Kayla M. Semmel in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Carbon County, Pennsylvania, and
Jeremy S. Breon in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Centre County, Pennsylvania, and
Debbie Bookman in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania, and
Jeffrey Hines in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Clarion County, Pennsylvania, and Brian
K. Spencer in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, and
Cynthia A. Love in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Clinton County, Pennsylvania, and
Barbara N. Silvetti in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Columbia County, Pennsylvania,
and Emmy Arnett in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Crawford County, Pennsylvania,
and Dale E. Sabadish in the official capacity
as the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas, of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, and Mary J. Walk in the
official capacity as the Director of Office of
Judicial Support of the Court of Common
Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania,
and Nina Capuzzi Frankhouser in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County,
Pennsylvania, and Dawn M. Millin in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Forest County,
Pennsylvania, and Timothy Sponseller in
the official capacity as the Prothonotary of
the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin
County, Pennsylvania, and Patty Fix in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Fulton County,
Pennsylvania, and Susan K. White in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Greene County,
Pennsylvania, and Kay Coons in the official
capacity as the Prothonotary of the Court of
Common Pleas of Huntingdon County,
Pennsylvania, and Randy Degenkolb in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County,
Pennsylvania, and Tonya S. Geist in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson
County, Pennsylvania, and Lori A. Ferry in
the official capacity as the Prothonotary of
the Court of Common Pleas of Juniata
County, Pennsylvania, and Mauri B. Kelly
in the official capacity as the Prothonotary
of the Court of Common Pleas of
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, and Jim
Haddock in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, and
Thomas D. Heap in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Lycoming County, Pennsylvania,
and Laura Isadore in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of McKean County, Pennsylvania,
and Tammy Stuck in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Mifflin County, Pennsylvania, and
George Warden in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Monroe County, Pennsylvania, and
Susan N. Kauwell in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Montour County, Pennsylvania,
and Holly Ruggiero in the official capacity
as the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Northampton County,
Pennsylvania, and Jamie Saleski in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland
County, Pennsylvania, and Zoe Burd in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Perry County,
Pennsylvania, and Denise Fitzpatrick in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Pike County,
Pennsylvania, and Bridget Miller in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill
County, Pennsylvania, and Stephanie Wolf
in the official capacity as the Prothonotary
of the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder
County, Pennsylvania, and Angie G.
Svonavec in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and
Kellie Carpenter in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Sullivan County, Pennsylvania, and
Marie Seymour in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Tioga County, Pennsylvania, and
Diane Miller in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Union County, Pennsylvania, and Paula
M. Palmer in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Venango County, Pennsylvania, and Jen
Phillips in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Warren County, Pennsylvania, and Laura
Hough in the official capacity as the
Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas
of Washington County, Pennsylvania, and
Edward Sandercock in the official capacity
as the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Wayne County, Pennsylvania, and
Christina O’Brien in the official capacity as
the Prothonotary of the Court of Common
Pleas of Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania, and Cindy Adams in the
official capacity as the Prothonotary of the
Court of Common Pleas of Wyoming
County, Pennsylvania, and Allison Blew in
the official capacity as the Prothonotary of
the Court of Common Pleas of York
County, Pennsylvania,
Respondents No. 133 M.D. 2021
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of January, 2023, Respondents’ preliminary
objections to Petitioners’ Second Amended Petition are SUSTAINED, in part, and
DISMISSED, in part, as moot, as set forth in the foregoing Memorandum Opinion.
The Second Amended Petition accordingly is DISMISSED, with prejudice.
________________________________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge